Mackey: Twins lack innovation

[glunn]

And talk is cheap. Until the results happen its hot air you are spewing, it is irrelevant to evaluating the present.

 

Moderator note -- please tone down the rhetoric.

[Kwak]

Innovation? Why would they innovate? They have "the best minor league system in MLB"--all because Terry Ryan resumed duties as GM. This despite multiple statements through the years that Ryan "defers to the scouts" when it comes to drafting. His wizardly trades will produce the talent to win--just like in the previous decade. I'm curious about the following: is the plan to produce a division winner, a World Series winner, or just a team that wins more than it loses? Oh, and what is the schedule of this plan and how was it determined?

[glunn]

I believe that the cyclical theory explains part of the lack of success of the last 3 seasons, but my gut tells me that if the Twins had hired Billy Beane 10 years ago, there would have been a lot more success.

 

Even if I am completely wrong about Beane being far more effective than Ryan/Smith, it seems short-sighted to me not to pursue every possible avenue of improvement, particularly hiring some people from organizations that have produced better results with less revenues. For example, it seems to me that the A's almost always have better pitching than the Twins. Why not try to hire a couple of their scouts and minor league coaches? If they bring good ideas, keep them. If not, then don't renew their contracts.

 

I will be a Twins fan until I die, even if they lose 100 games per season forever. I spend a lot of energy and karma hoping that they will win. I buy their merchandise, watch their Menards commercials and attend their games. I feel that they owe us fans their best efforts, and that includes trying new things when the old things are producing record levels of TID (Twins Induced Depression).

 

I also don't see how management can ignore the fact that other teams are doing new things and enjoying far greater success than the Twins. Yes, the innovation and the success MIGHT be purely coincidental, but it seems to me that it would be arrogant not to at least try the new things.

 

Many of us fans give 110% of our hearts rooting for the Twins. After 3 years of TID, I think that we deserve 110% from the FO, and that includes being willing to admit that outsiders may know better.

[old nurse]

I believe that the cyclical theory explains part of the lack of success of the last 3 seasons, but my gut tells me that if the Twins had hired Billy Beane 10 years ago, there would have been a lot more success.

 

Even if I am completely wrong about Beane being far more effective than Ryan/Smith, it seems short-sighted to me not to pursue every possible avenue of improvement, particularly hiring some people from organizations that have produced better results with less revenues. For example, it seems to me that the A's almost always have better pitching than the Twins. Why not try to hire a couple of their scouts and minor league coaches? If they bring good ideas, keep them. If not, then don't renew their contracts.

 

I will be a Twins fan until I die, even if they lose 100 games per season forever. I spend a lot of energy and karma hoping that they will win. I buy their merchandise, watch their Menards commercials and attend their games. I feel that they owe us fans their best efforts, and that includes trying new things when the old things are producing record levels of TID (Twins Induced Depression).

 

I also don't see how management can ignore the fact that other teams are doing new things and enjoying far greater success than the Twins. Yes, the innovation and the success MIGHT be purely coincidental, but it seems to me that it would be arrogant not to at least try the new things.

 

Many of us fans give 110% of our hearts rooting for the Twins. After 3 years of TID, I think that we deserve 110% from the FO, and that includes being willing to admit that outsiders may know better.

 

How would you have expected Billy Beane to have run the Twins any differently if he would have taken over in 07?

[Squirrel]

Even moreso with a club basking in the glow and revenue-super-boost from a new stadium.....ie, the Orioles had a 6-year run of W-L success coinciding with the opening of Camden Yards....the Giants with a 5-year run after AT&T opened. Does anyone wish to defend the lack of linkage between team success and the extraordinary increase in revenue streams and quantum jump in the franchise's net worth with the advent of TF? Seems more than just cyclical......

 

Everyone ... please let's leave out the labels 'apologists' and 'haters' in our discussions. There are always two sides to every issue and people have the right to disagree, but stop with the labels.

[Celebrity Weddings!]

I'm comfortable with a desire for innovation, but thought this piece was pretty contentless. Mr. Hageman's rundown above (but for his charitable refusal to blame Joe Sheehan, who I'm sure deserves blame for something) added a helpful curtain-pulling context to this article's weirdly unironic "the Indians are twitter" conclusions. The Indians were distinctly non-brilliant until they started winning, and outside of a manager change it's not clear that things are any different there than they were a couple years ago.

 

I guess the difficulty is that there's too many things to name when a team has been this bad for three consecutive years. Something with a bit more grit to it, like "the Twins need to play more extreme defensive shifts" would seem sort of hopelessly deck-chair-on-the-Titanic. But since I agree with it then at least one fewer person would be harping on Mr. Mackey here.

 

Whatever. It sounds like he thinks the Twins would win more if Terry Ryan got some Malcolm Gladwell books for Christmas. I've kind of come to expect better from this author than traditional grouchy columnist pieces, but I suppose he did impressively blend old school grumping with new school hobby horses on this one

[John Bonnes]

Note: I'm too lazy to go find it, but referenced interview was published a couple years ago on another Twins site, which I won't name.

 

For future reference, please feel free to name and even link stories form other sites, including TwinkieTown.com. We want TwinsDaily to be a gateway to Twins discussion, no matter whether people view them as a competitor or not.

[Guest USAFChief]

For future reference, please feel free to name and even link stories form other sites, including TwinkieTown.com. We want TwinsDaily to be a gateway to Twins discussion, no matter whether people view them as a competitor or not.

The interview was published at Twinkietown.com.

[Seth Stohs]

That said, I think a lot of people seem to be guilty of exactly what they accuse others of. The Giants won in 2012 so look at what they do with their advanced analysis and give those guys the credit. But if a team loses, then it can't possibly be the analysis that's to blame. It must have been injuries or underperformance or bad decisions or FO not heeding the analysts. Conversely, a team that wins despite doing little advanced analysis just lucked in to their success despite doing it wrong.

 

Ryan's staunch opposition to giving any sort of credence to advanced analytical research is frustrating to me. So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent.

 

Well said, Mr. Crikket!!!

[ThePuck]

Ryan's staunch opposition to giving any sort of credence to advanced analytical research is frustrating to me. So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent.

 

I don't know of anyone around here, or anyone period, who believes: 'that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent.'

 

I think what many people believe is that it shouldn't be tossed aside, used as an afterthought, or belittled, but rather utilized like any other way of evaluating talent.

[ND-Fan]

Three loosing season's there's a lot of blame to go around for whole organization. The mistakes have happened years ago and were seeing the results of these mistakes now. To turn this organization around is going to take money, revaluation of how they do things, and some luck in next few years. When Bill Smith was let go 2 years ago some of stories were that for Twins to compete he was stated that Twins would need to use free agency to build a team for immediate time. I think ownership wasn't on that page yet but I think that they have also have had a change of heart on that with reason articles about ownership. The big q

[ND-Fan]

Three loosing seasons you can spread blame around to a lot of people organization from top to bottom. The mistakes and poor decisions were made years ago and results of this is shown in records we experienced this past couple year. When Bill Smith who made his fair share of mistakes also said when he was let go that Twins would need to depend on free agency to remain competitive in near future but ownership didn't feel that way and that's why we have terry Ryan. I think ownership now see's he may have been right with there recent statements on free agency. I just wonder if there in for sticker shock of what its going to cost because now its going to take over normal price to get free agents to come to Twins and rebuild this organization.

 

The Twins need to revaluate how too draft and choose pitching because in last 20 some years the Twins pitchers they have drafted were not close to being a big time pictcher. Even ones Twins have developed were either traded or acquired by twins not through the draft. With a track record of this sample size means that Twins philosophy needs to be changed. Also Twins have not had a lot of success in shortstops and third baseman this area needs to be looked at.

 

Guardy needs to look at his managerial style too and his coaching staff wondering how to develop most out of talent he was given. It may mean managing differently than he has and not style of baseball he was taught but may be necessary to gain a few wins. Pitching coaching needs definitely to be looked at the talent hasn't been there but pitchers seem to improve when they go some place else. We can't have pitchers that are not striking people out were at absolute bottom of major leagues and yet we seem to have pitchers with enough velocity and pitches to get more strikeouts than we have been getting.

 

Terry Ryan I think will have difficult time this coming year he's going to have stretch as general manager he's going to have spend money on free agents and even in case or two spend more than going market to get them come to the Twins. He's from old school and has patience to rebuild a team by draft picks but times have changed and money lost from not competing is to big that innovation in improving quicker is needed.

[twinsfan34]

I plan on writing an article, er, I mean blog on Billy Beane. I will break down his success as a GM. Trades, through the Draft, Salary cap management (through trading arbitration eligible players vs talent payback), and the team's success with players he was directly responsible for.

 

I have a feeling y'all will be very surprised when the facts are put out there.

 

I will say, this guy is a trader jack, and that has made connecting the strings a lot more work.

 

I also plan on putting forth a very compelling Byron Buxton article that I have yet to find in circulation.

 

Just takes a lot of statistical analysis.

 

As always, love the discussions you guys bring.

[TRex]

I am a little late to the party, but...

 

I like the Mackey article, and think it is 'our' job to challenge the teams' status quo (or at least those who can write coherently). However, I think his comparison of the Twins as 'Blackberry' and the Rays as 'Apple' is quite off. The Twins did not invent some new toy and fail to acknowledge it's limitations and the progress of their competitors. Instead, the Twins excellence resulted from several 'time honored' baseball truisms. Therefore, I think the the more fitting comparison would be that the Twins are IBM while the Rays are Apple. And I think the last 20 years have shown that, no matter how hard they try, IBM will never be Apple. In fact, NO ONE else (not even new, start-up companies) have been able to reproduce 'Apple'... and no one has been able to reproduce Billy Beane. But on the other hand, IBM (and IBM wannabe's) still maintain the lion's share of the market and they may be better off honing their own product rather than trying to re-create WYSIWYG (always wanted to type that, hope I wasn't supposed to use *******).

 

Finally, however, I hope that the Twins at least acknowledge their operating system is a little clunky and they learn to mimic some of the functionality of their competitors (i.e. maybe have more than just 1 or 2 guys in their analytics department)! I also hope that they let their scouts be scouts and don't try to get them to develop new statistical analytics... baseball scouts/brilliant mathematicians are hard to come by!

 

And in case the Twins are willing to hire Mackey... he is my favorite Twins writer, and I could be hired away from my current job without much ado!

[jokin]

Everyone ... please let's leave out the labels 'apologists' and 'haters' in our discussions. There are always two sides to every issue and people have the right to disagree, but stop with the labels.

 

Labels can become a problem in civil debate. Variations on Godwin's Law have been thoroughly demonstrated to be examples of one side not having sufficient evidence on their side and having to resort to name-calling one's opponents by way of the Pejorative, calling their rhetorical oppositie, a commie, a nazi, or even a "hater".

But the term "apologist" doesn't fall under that heading at all, it is, in fact, perfectly descriptive use of the English language that successfully seeks to fully construe a certain set of behaviors. One side of this debate acts as an apologist for the status quo, the other is an apologist for the need for change.

 

From Merriam-Free Dictionary-Websters-American Heritage, et al:

 

Apologist-

 

 

a·pol·o·gist (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-jhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifst) n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

apologist [əˈpɒlədʒɪst] n a person who offers a defence by argument

 

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

 

a•pol•o•gist (əˈpɒl ə dʒɪst)

 

n. a person who defends an idea, faith, cause, or institution.

[1630–40]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

apologist a person who defends, in speech or writing, a faith, doctrine, idea, or action.

 

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

[TABLE]

Noun

1.

http://img.tfd.com/wn/86/68B64-apologist.jpgapologist - a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment"

 

justifier, vindicator

advocate, advocator, exponent, proponent - a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ryan's staunch opposition to giving any sort of credence to advanced analytical research is frustrating to me. So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent.

 

I agree with most of what this poster said and would always defend his right to say it, and yet........his final sentence is far more inflammatory than merely using a label- a tool of language that in and of it self, used nonpejoratively, merely sorts out the opposing camps for a particular point of view. And yet, this clearly inflammatory sentence by TD standards, apparently isn't worth one bit of space with a warning for toning down the rhetoric.

[/TABLE]

[cmb0252]

Labels can become a problem in civil debate. Variations on Godwin's Law have been thoroughly demonstrated to be examples of one side not having sufficient evidence on their side and having to resort to name-calling one's opponents by way of the Pejorative, calling their rhetorical oppositie, a commie, a nazi, or even a "hater".

But the term "apologist" doesn't fall under that heading at all, it is, in fact, perfectly descriptive use of the English language that successfully seeks to fully construe a certain set of behaviors. One side of this debate acts as an apologist for the status quo, the other is an apologist for the need for change.

 

From Merriam-Free Dictionary-Websters-American Heritage, et al:

 

Apologist-

 

 

a·pol·o·gist (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-jhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifst) n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

apologist [əˈpɒlədʒɪst] n a person who offers a defence by argument

 

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

 

a•pol•o•gist (əˈpɒl ə dʒɪst)

 

n. a person who defends an idea, faith, cause, or institution.

[1630–40]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

apologist a person who defends, in speech or writing, a faith, doctrine, idea, or action.

 

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

[TABLE]

Noun

1.

http://img.tfd.com/wn/86/68B64-apologist.jpgapologist - a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment"

 

justifier, vindicator

advocate, advocator, exponent, proponent - a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea

 

 

 

[/TABLE]

 

This seems completely unnecessary....

 

If I agree with certain things Terry Ryan does I'm an "apologists" but if I disagree with things Terry Ryan does I'm a "hater"? What if i agree with certain things he does and certain things he doesn't? Does that make me a apologist hater? Wait that doesn't sound right. Am I a hater apologist? That doesn't sound right either... Bah! I'm confused!

[glunn]

How would you have expected Billy Beane to have run the Twins any differently if he would have taken over in 07?

 

I was expressly talking about a gut feeling. And in the next paragraph I admitted that this might be completely incorrect.

 

That said, my sense is that Beane almost always comes up with more wins per dollar of payroll than almost any other GM, and that he generally comes up with a competitive team despite a relatively meagre budget. I wonder what he could do with $100 million per year of payroll.

[glunn]

I plan on writing an article, er, I mean blog on Billy Beane. I will break down his success as a GM. Trades, through the Draft, Salary cap management (through trading arbitration eligible players vs talent payback), and the team's success with players he was directly responsible for.

 

I have a feeling y'all will be very surprised when the facts are put out there.

 

I will say, this guy is a trader jack, and that has made connecting the strings a lot more work.

 

I also plan on putting forth a very compelling Byron Buxton article that I have yet to find in circulation.

 

Just takes a lot of statistical analysis.

 

As always, love the discussions you guys bring.

 

I look forward to reading these blogs.

[Squirrel]

Labels can become a problem in civil debate. [TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD]

[/TABLE]

 

You hit the nail on the head with your first sentence. While I appreciate the vocabulary lesson, these words are not being used in a civil manner, despite their meanings, and we have received complaints to that regard. So, I am asking once again, to please refrain from such usage to keep the discussions on target.

[glunn]

So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent.[TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD]

I agree with most of what this poster said and would always defend his right to say it, and yet........his final sentence is far more inflammatory than merely using a label- a tool of language that in and of it self, used nonpejoratively, merely sorts out the opposing camps for a particular point of view. And yet, this clearly inflammatory sentence by TD standards, apparently isn't worth one bit of space with a warning for toning down the rhetoric.

[/TABLE]

 

I think that you make a fair point about that sentence at the end being inflammatory, and I wish that I had issued another warning to tone down the rhetoric.

 

On the other hand, having been a moderator for a while, I don't know which is worse -- labeling and personal attacks versus inflammatory statements and trolling. They are all against the rules and we are going to continue to enforce all of the rules.

 

We moderators have been instructed to enforce the rules and we are trying our best to enforce all of them. The goal is intelligent, respectful debate. Passion is good, but it must be tempered with respect. Otherwise, the ideas get drowned out by the personal squabbling.

 

We are trying our best to strike a balance here, and every one of your moderators talks with the other moderators almost every day about how to promote civil debate without squashing the passion that most fans feel for their positions.

[jokin]

You hit the nail on the head with your first sentence. While I appreciate the vocabulary lesson, these words are not being used in a civil manner, despite their meanings, and we have received complaints to that regard. So, I am asking once again, to please refrain from such usage to keep the discussions on target.

 

Do you have an opinion on the above-referenced clearly inflammatory and absurdist absolutist sentence (based on TD policy guidelines) that seems more "egregious" an "offense" in the mods never-ending pursuit of civil debate :

 

"So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent."

[jokin]

I think that you make a fair point about that sentence at the end being inflammatory, and I wish that I had issued another warning to tone down the rhetoric.

 

On the other hand, having been a moderator for a while, I don't know which is worse -- labeling and personal attacks versus inflammatory statements and trolling. They are all against the rules and we are going to continue to enforce all of the rules.

 

We moderators have been instructed to enforce the rules and we are trying our best to enforce all of them. The goal is intelligent, respectful debate. Passion is good, but it must be tempered with respect. Otherwise, the ideas get drowned out by the personal squabbling.

 

We are trying our best to strike a balance here, and every one of your moderators talks with the other moderators almost every day about how to promote civil debate without squashing the passion that most fans feel for their positions.

 

Of course, in this instance, moderators and TD contributors collectively liked and congratulated the poster for his efforts. Leaves a lot of us confused.

[glunn]

Do you have an opinion on the above-referenced clearly inflammatory and absurdist absolutist sentence (based on TD policy guidelines) that seems more "egregious" an "offense" in the mods never-ending pursuit of civil debate :

 

"So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent."

 

 

Let's at least put the inflammatory language in context and with a different emphasis:

 

"Ryan's staunch opposition to giving any sort of credence to advanced analytical research is frustrating to me. So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent."

 

I am not saying that the post is not inflammatory. Indeed, I am wondering if we need a new rule about deleting any post that uses the word "bow" or "bowing". We are seeing those words too often, and they are not helping.

[glunn]

Of course, in this instance, moderators and TD contributors collectively liked and congratulated the poster for his efforts. Leaves a lot of us confused.

 

I see that one moderator liked the post. I suspect that he liked the non-inflammatory portions and was too tired from dealing with other, clearer violations to give this the level of attention that we have just given it.

 

Like umpires, we are not perfect. And you probably have no idea how hard we work and how much we talk to each other about how to promote intelligent debate without killing the passion.

[old nurse]

Labels can become a problem in civil debate. Variations on Godwin's Law have been thoroughly demonstrated to be examples of one side not having sufficient evidence on their side and having to resort to name-calling one's opponents by way of the Pejorative, calling their rhetorical oppositie, a commie, a nazi, or even a "hater".

But the term "apologist" doesn't fall under that heading at all, it is, in fact, perfectly descriptive use of the English language that successfully seeks to fully construe a certain set of behaviors. One side of this debate acts as an apologist for the status quo, the other is an apologist for the need for change.

 

From Merriam-Free Dictionary-Websters-American Heritage, et al:

 

Apologist-

 

 

a·pol·o·gist (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-jhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifst) n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

apologist [əˈpɒlədʒɪst] n a person who offers a defence by argument

 

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

 

a•pol•o•gist (əˈpɒl ə dʒɪst)

 

n. a person who defends an idea, faith, cause, or institution.

[1630–40]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

apologist a person who defends, in speech or writing, a faith, doctrine, idea, or action.

 

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

[TABLE]

Noun

1.

http://img.tfd.com/wn/86/68B64-apologist.jpgapologist - a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment"

 

justifier, vindicator

advocate, advocator, exponent, proponent - a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with most of what this poster said and would always defend his right to say it, and yet........his final sentence is far more inflammatory than merely using a label- a tool of language that in and of it self, used nonpejoratively, merely sorts out the opposing camps for a particular point of view. And yet, this clearly inflammatory sentence by TD standards, apparently isn't worth one bit of space with a warning for toning down the rhetoric.

[/TABLE]

 

How you phrase things can set it up as inflammatory. Making a statement and coming across as a challenging someone to have an idea that is different. Labeling that person into a group so as to divide them away from what you are. It also sets up an expectation of negativity like trolling.

 

Example The shy is blue. I can't wait for the gloom and doom people say.

 

BTW, The response I have had from some people in regards to the use of statistics and other comments makes me not disagree with the underlined statement.

[nicksaviking]

How would you have expected Billy Beane to have run the Twins any differently if he would have taken over in 07?

 

My guess is Beane would have started flipping the young pitchers when they peaked instead of waiting until their nadir and when their service time became a salary burden. Think about how nice it would have been to actually get something of a return for Blackburn instead of being saddled with that rediculous contract. Garza may still have been traded, but Beane surely wouldn't have taken back a return of the OBP-phobic Delmon Young.

 

As Beane has had a history of moving pitchers at their peak, or at least not when they are in the basement, I think it would also be a reasonable assumption he would have moved Liriano after his successful, but red flagged, 2010 season. Either that or hire a pitching coach and manager who didn't insist on an approach that naturally led to more balls being put into play.

 

Of course that last sentance speaks a lot. Beane would have wanted a coaching staff more ameniable to new age baseball ideas.

[Shane Wahl]

I really like the term "OBP-phobic" a lot.

[Jim Crikket]

I haven't spent much time on TD the last couple of days and I'm disappointed to return and find one sentence of a comment I made a couple days ago has caused such consternation.

 

I apologize to those who were offended.

 

Even more so, I apologize to the moderators who have had to devote more time than they should have had to on my account.

 

My frustration comes largely because I find myself defending advanced statistical analysis and old school scouting from what I consider to be extreme viewpoints of one side or the other. I don't think anyone knows the degree to which the Twins and Terry Ryan listen to Jack Goin. What we do know is that the Twins have lost way too much the last three years and that's not acceptable to us, as fans.

 

It seems to me that arguing over this kind of thing is counterproductive anyway and I'm sorry I weighed in at all.

 

Again, I apologize.

 

P.S. Shane: I like the term "OBP-phobic" as applied to DY, too, even if it is a label.

[Shane Wahl]

Wait, JC and I have brought about this melee? I am honored to be in such company. I am way more guilty though.

[old nurse]

My guess is Beane would have started flipping the young pitchers when they peaked instead of waiting until their nadir and when their service time became a salary burden. Think about how nice it would have been to actually get something of a return for Blackburn instead of being saddled with that rediculous contract. Garza may still have been traded, but Beane surely wouldn't have taken back a return of the OBP-phobic Delmon Young.

 

As Beane has had a history of moving pitchers at their peak, or at least not when they are in the basement, I think it would also be a reasonable assumption he would have moved Liriano after his successful, but red flagged, 2010 season. Either that or hire a pitching coach and manager who didn't insist on an approach that naturally led to more balls being put into play.

 

Of course that last sentance speaks a lot. Beane would have wanted a coaching staff more ameniable to new age baseball ideas.

 

SO that lack of talent on the current team then could be traced back to the inability of Smith to make trades and get value for his players when he could. You knock the Garza trade but not the Santana one.

You really think he could have got something back for a back of rotation pitcher like Blackburn? With only one good season do you think Liriano would have fetched what Gio Gonzales did? If you spotted red flags, wouldn't the other geaneral managers?

What specifically has Art Howe, Ken Macha, Bon Green, or Bob Melvin done that is new age baseball as they are Beane's hires?